Zakir Naik - What do you think of him?

[Red-Indian]

Religion depends on scriptures , those scriptures give it identity. For example the constitution of a country give the core principles on which legislation will be based upon.

If there are other interpretation , Mr Ravi shankar could have raised the point then and there , but he did not. That was the appropriate time , when you are playing a match , you have to show your skills right in the middle , when all focus is on you. No point in getting out for duck and then come to nets and hit 30 sixes. It will not matter there.

Well Ravishankar is himself a charlatan so it was two buffoons arguing past each other with no real understanding of each other's religions so it was a pretty poor quality debate.

In the end though, there's no point trying to prove Hinduism through logical fallacies in it's scriptures. The closest I can explain it is that the Hindus think of their religious scriptures like the Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads as divinely inspired but subject to human error in transcription and needing years of learning and total faith to interpret for the average person.

It's tough for you guys who think a scripture should be like a rulebook or a constitution and it shouldn't have any errors. I guess it would be like a colourblind person trying to understand colour.

And of course (I can't resist a dig) for us atheists, it feels like fans of Star Wars and Star Trek arguing with each other about which is more accurate.

 

[Justcrazy]

Well Ravishankar is himself a charlatan so it was two buffoons arguing past each other with no real understanding of each other's religions so it was a pretty poor quality debate.

In the end though, there's no point trying to prove Hinduism through logical fallacies in it's scriptures. The closest I can explain it is that the Hindus think of their religious scriptures like the Vedas, Puranas and Upanishads as divinely inspired but subject to human error in transcription and needing years of learning and total faith to interpret for the average person.

It's tough for you guys who think a scripture should be like a rulebook or a constitution and it shouldn't have any errors. I guess it would be like a colourblind person trying to understand colour.

And of course (I can't resist a dig) for us atheists, it feels like fans of Star Wars and Star Trek arguing with each other about which is more accurate.

Well , I have never seen any person in the world with whom everyone agrees , or speaks good about. Whatever Ravi Shankar is , he is knowledgeable about Hindu scriptures . You can only debate with someone who has certain following , which he had.
Zakir Naik debate with william campbell , because he had written a book about Science and Quran , and for years it was not answered. When he wrote that book , he must have researched the Quran well , to find the points required by him , so he was no where near been a foolish person.

Yes , what you said about Vedas , Puranas etc being inspired I agree with that , I mentioned in the about comments , I think you did not read that or it skipped your attention. But the Muslims do not consider Quran as inspired but revealed.

The point here is that if a hindu , or christian or Muslim believes that there is God , and he created this creation , then there must be a reason behind that . How do we know what God wants us to do ? Through the scriptures. Now if I am not sure about them , and think that it has errors , then how can it be followed ?

 

[Red-Indian]

Well , I have never seen any person in the world with whom everyone agrees , or speaks good about. Whatever Ravi Shankar is , he is knowledgeable about Hindu scriptures . You can only debate with someone who has certain following , which he had.
Zakir Naik debate with william campbell , because he had written a book about Science and Quran , and for years it was not answered. When he wrote that book , he must have researched the Quran well , to find the points required by him , so he was no where near been a foolish person.

Yes , what you said about Vedas , Puranas etc being inspired I agree with that , I mentioned in the about comments , I think you did not read that or it skipped your attention. But the Muslims do not consider Quran as inspired but revealed.

The point here is that if a hindu , or christian or Muslim believes that there is God , and he created this creation , then there must be a reason behind that . How do we know what God wants us to do ? Through the scriptures. Now if I am not sure about them , and think that it has errors , then how can it be followed ?

I'm not sure how you'd follow it but for the average Hindu, it would be by trusting and having faith in a guru or saint and following their interpretations of the scriptures.

If it has errors, so be it. Most Hindus seem to be believe the intent is what matters not the details - whether you pray once a month or ten times a day, whether you revere the elephant headed god or the formless spirit.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Well , I have never seen any person in the world with whom everyone agrees , or speaks good about. Whatever Ravi Shankar is , he is knowledgeable about Hindu scriptures . You can only debate with someone who has certain following , which he had.
Zakir Naik debate with william campbell , because he had written a book about Science and Quran , and for years it was not answered. When he wrote that book , he must have researched the Quran well , to find the points required by him , so he was no where near been a foolish person.

Yes , what you said about Vedas , Puranas etc being inspired I agree with that , I mentioned in the about comments , I think you did not read that or it skipped your attention. But the Muslims do not consider Quran as inspired but revealed.

The point here is that if a hindu , or christian or Muslim believes that there is God , and he created this creation , then there must be a reason behind that . How do we know what God wants us to do ? Through the scriptures. Now if I am not sure about them , and think that it has errors , then how can it be followed ?

This is a difference I realised recently.

They don't care about their scriptures. What matters to them is tradition passed down through community practices and oral tradition.

When we ask to go back to scriptures we are applying our philosophy and expecting them to abide by it.

Scriptural analysis and comparison is possible between Abrahmic religions but I don't think it something worse pursuing between Muslims and Hindus.

 

[Justcrazy]

This is a difference I realised recently.

They don't care about their scriptures. What matters to them is tradition passed down through community practices and oral tradition.

When we ask to go back to scriptures we are applying our philosophy and expecting them to abide by it.

Scriptural analysis and comparison is possible between Abrahmic religions but I don't think it something worse pursuing between Muslims and Hindus.

Vedas , Puranas , Upanishads etc were also passed on by oral traditions before being written as Manuscript.

Hindus do not want to follow them , because they are not sure about authenticity of them. For example if you ask them who wrote the vedas , the will say some unknown saints wrote them long ago, and it was passed by different generation.

If you ask a Muslim who wrote a particular hadeeth , they will say its in a certain book. If you look into that book you will find chain of narrators , and you will also find books on biography of those narrators . Thus you can ascertain finer details and do not believe them just because they are in a certain book. Thus Muslims are more confident about their religion.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Vedas , Puranas , Upanishads etc were also passed on by oral traditions before being written as Manuscript.

Hindus do not want to follow them , because they are not sure about authenticity of them. For example if you ask them who wrote the vedas , the will say some unknown saints wrote them long ago, and it was passed by different generation.

If you ask a Muslim who wrote a particular hadeeth , they will say its in a certain book. If you look into that book you will find chain of narrators , and you will also find books on biography of those narrators . Thus you can ascertain finer details and do not believe them just because they are in a certain book. Thus Muslims are more confident abouigion.

Hindus don't want to follow them? Who told you that?

Our scriptures are not divine ordained. The end goal of of these scriptures is moksha or enlightenment. There are various ways to reach it.

These scriptures are written by sages who spent years in deep meditation and yoga to reliaze the knowledge itself.

More over our scriptures realise no two human beings are same. According to one gunas, a person is prescribed a practise by a master. There is more than what meets the eye.

 

[Justcrazy]

Hindus don't want to follow them? Who told you that?

Our scriptures are not divine ordained. The end goal of of these scriptures is moksha or enlightenment. There are various ways to reach it.

These scriptures are written by sages who spent years in deep meditation and yoga to reliaze the knowledge itself.

More over our scriptures realise no two human beings are same. According to one gunas, a person is prescribed a practise by a master. There is more than what meets the eye.

What is your point here because what you are saying is very ambiguous in nature.

Are you saying that hindus follow there scriptures ?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes the hypocricy , if the Muslim regimes kill muslims , its OK but any Israeli attacks , scream genocide..

It is a genocide, there's not really much debate about it though. Israel is getting discussed to death because it is THE international issue currently and being talked about as leading to a possible world war.

I don't think you understood my point anyway. If we had posters from said despotic Muslim countries coming on here attacking Pakistanis then they would definitely get slapped down. But they don't post here. Neither do israelis for that matter, but we have Indians like yourself constantly beating the drum for their right to obliterate Gaza and that keeps the topic churning.

 

[Red-Indian]

What is your point here because what you are saying is very ambiguous in nature.

Are you saying that hindus follow there scriptures ?

It's very tough for someone with your perspective on religion to understand.

The best I would put it is that Hindus sincerely believe in the broad principles of their religion and follow the scriptures to the extent that they are personally convinced by them...often as interpreted by a Guru or a preacher.

 

[Justcrazy]

It's very tough for someone with your perspective on religion to understand.

The best I would put it is that Hindus sincerely believe in the broad principles of their religion and follow the scriptures to the extent that they are personally convinced by them...often as interpreted by a Guru or a preacher.

So mean it is like pick and choose ?

 

[Red-Indian]

So mean it is like pick and choose ?

Sure yes. Follow those parts of the religion/scripture which talk to you personally and which you are personally convinced by.

 

[Justcrazy]

Sure yes. Follow those parts of the religion/scripture which talk to you personally and which you are personally convinced by.

That means that humans have better understanding than God . Creation is more intelligent than the creation.

 

[IndoorCricket]

That means that humans have better understanding than God . Creation is more intelligent than the creation.

That's where dharmic religions differ. The self is God. There is nothing but God. You, me and everything is God. This is what major sects of Hinduism believes. Self-realization is all about reliasing oneself as God.

 

[Red-Indian]

That means that humans have better understanding than God . Creation is more intelligent than the creation.

I thought you'd feel that way.

@IndoorCricket has explained the philosophical principle behind the freedom to follow Hinduism as you like it but at a more practical level - Hindus believe there are many, many paths to God while Muslims believe there's only one.

As far as Hindus are concerned, you can pray 10 times a day or none, follow all the rituals or reject them, worship the elephant headed god or revere a formless entity. You'll find something in the scriptures or some guru to light your path. As long as you do good(Dharma), you're fine and will have solid Karma.

 

[Justcrazy]

I thought you'd feel that way.

@IndoorCricket has explained the philosophical principle behind the freedom to follow Hinduism as you like it but at a more practical level - Hindus believe there are many, many paths to God while Muslims believe there's only one.

As far as Hindus are concerned, you can pray 10 times a day or none, follow all the rituals or reject them, worship the elephant headed god or revere a formless entity. You'll find something in the scriptures or some guru to light your path. As long as you do good(Dharma), you're fine and will have solid Karma.

When you say I pick and choose according to my understanding , naturally it will be concluded that that particular person believes he knows more than God.

You are speaking about doing Good ( Dharma ), so is a hindu free to determine own Good ( Dharma) ?

 

[Justcrazy]

That's where dharmic religions differ. The self is God. There is nothing but God. You, me and everything is God. This is what major sects of Hinduism believes. Self-realization is all about reliasing oneself as God.

What you are saying is called philosophy , not religion.

If you believe we all are Gods , then why we will worship Gods that Hindus worship ?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

That's where dharmic religions differ. The self is God. There is nothing but God. You, me and everything is God. This is what major sects of Hinduism believes. Self-realization is all about reliasing oneself as God.

Very interesting and I guess this is one of the reasons where I think it's impossible to undertake a comparative religion discussion using Abrahmic framework on Hinduism.

It's a fundamentally differently way of viewing things.

For example I know there is a sect of Hindus that eats dead human brains and lives in graveyards. Technically there is nothing unorthodox in what they are doing because Hinduism doesn't seem to have an orthodoxy.

Islam ( as you will know) is fundamentally different it has very strict definitions of what is acceptable and what is not, what can be practices and what can't. Of course there are debates but the debates then use scriptures as reference points.

What at @Justcrazy is mentioning from an Islamic perspective is a major sin - picking and choosing ( making haram halal and vice versa). If a Muslim claims to do this he is probably a heretic. but it's perfectly normal for you guys.

Again I apologise for being repetitive this just makes the whole concept of comparison like Zakir tries to do with h Hinduism just completely redundant.

 

[IndoorCricket]

What you are saying is called philosophy , not religion.

If you believe we all are Gods , then why we will worship Gods that Hindus worship ?

Your worldview might be tainted by your religion. The fundamental problem is you say your God and defination of God is the only one rejecting every thing else and that may be what you need to do as part of your religion. But thats not how Dharmic religions operate.

The point of God is not worship. The goal of most Dharmic religions is realisation that we are God. You and me are not realized beings. Just knowing we are God and realizing that we are God are total different experiences.

Very interesting and I guess this is one of the reasons where I think it's impossible to undertake a comparative religion discussion using Abrahmic framework on Hinduism.

It's a fundamentally differently way of viewing things.

For example I know there is a sect of Hindus that eats dead human brains and lives in graveyards. Technically there is nothing unorthodox in what they are doing because Hinduism doesn't seem to have an orthodoxy.

Islam ( as you will know) is fundamentally different it has very strict definitions of what is acceptable and what is not, what can be practices and what can't. Of course there are debates but the debates then use scriptures as reference points.

What at @Justcrazy is mentioning from an Islamic perspective is a major sin - picking and choosing ( making haram halal and vice versa). If a Muslim claims to do this he is probably a heretic. but it's perfectly normal for you guys.

Again I apologise for being repetitive this just makes the whole concept of comparison like Zakir tries to do with h Hinduism just completely redundant.

Yes. There is a fundamental difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. Dharmic practices might be totally alien from a Abrahamic worldview.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Your worldview might be tainted by your religion. The fundamental problem is you say your God and defination of God is the only one rejecting every thing else and that may be what you need to do as part of your religion. But thats not how Dharmic religions operate.

The point of God is not worship. The goal of most Dharmic religions is realisation that we are God. You and me are not realized beings. Just knowing we are God and realizing that we are God are total different experiences.



Yes. There is a fundamental difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions. Dharmic practices might be totally alien from a Abrahamic worldview.

If that was true there would have been no need of Buddhism or Sikh religion to arise. Hindu religion would already have everything needed encompassed in it's religion and perfect as it was.

 

[Red-Indian]

If that was true there would have been no need of Buddhism or Sikh religion to arise. Hindu religion would already have everything needed encompassed in it's religion and perfect as it was.

Both Buddhism and Sikhism want a narrower definition of God and the paths to him/her than Hinduism. I think Hinduism would happily claim them as another internal sect but they don't want to be so claimed.

 

[IndoorCricket]

If that was true there would have been no need of Buddhism or Sikh religion to arise. Hindu religion would already have everything needed encompassed in it's religion and perfect as it was.

Hinduism itself has many different sects. Advaitha, dvaitha, nishistha advaitha etc.. they are religion on their own.

 

[IndoorCricket]

If that was true there would have been no need of Buddhism or Sikh religion to arise. Hindu religion would already have everything needed encompassed in it's religion and perfect as it was.

Hinduism doesn't fit into dogmatic definitions of religion. There is only one aim and that is moksha. Do what needs to done to attain it. Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism.. whatever it takes. Be liberated, that's the aim.

 

[IndoorCricket]

One has to know experience of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa practising Islam. He was the guru of famous Indian monk, Swami Vivekananda. He practised most religions in his lifetime. Here's what he has experienced when practicing Islam

Toward the end of 1866 he began to practise the disciplines of Islam. Under the direction of his Mussalman guru he abandoned himself to his new sadhana. He dressed as a Mussalman and repeated the name of Allah. His prayers took the form of the Islamic devotions. He forgot the Hindu gods and goddesses — even Kali — and gave up visiting the temples. He took up his residence outside the temple precincts. After three days he saw the vision of a radiant figure, perhaps Mohammed. This figure gently approached him and finally lost himself in Sri Ramakrishna. Thus he realized the Mussalman God. Thence he passed into communion with Brahman. The mighty river of Islam also led him back to the Ocean of the Absolute.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hinduism itself has many different sects. Advaitha, dvaitha, nishistha advaitha etc.. they are religion on their own.

So what makes the world view provided by these any less tainted than Abrahamic religions?

 

[IndoorCricket]

So what makes the world view provided by these any less tainted than Abrahamic religions?

Dharmic faiths recognises all paths lead to the God. It realises concepts of atma, paramatma, liberation and conciousness . Abrahamic faiths divides, Dharmic faiths unites. You can be a apostate in dharmic land and not get beheaded.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Dharmic faiths recognises all paths lead to the God. It realises concepts of atma, paramatma, liberation and conciousness . Abrahamic faiths divides, Dharmic faiths unites. You can be a apostate in dharmic land and not get beheaded.

Dharmic faith also divides, you yourself are the one pointing to many different sects, new religions splitting off and forming new and rejecting old ones - Sikhism and Buddhism being prime examples. Hinduism cannot accept Islamic religion unless it compromises it's own laws to be subservient to Hindu laws disallowing cow slaughter. So where is the difference?

 

[Justcrazy]

Your worldview might be tainted by your religion. The fundamental problem is you say your God and defination of God is the only one rejecting every thing else and that may be what you need to do as part of your religion. But thats not how Dharmic religions operate.

The point of God is not worship. The goal of most Dharmic religions is realisation that we are God. You and me are not realized beings. Just knowing we are God and realizing that we are God are total different experiences.

Can I ask what is the source of your philosophy ? From where you have read these things or you got this realization yourself ?

 

[Justcrazy]

@DeadlyVenom Those who eat flesh and live in graveyards are called Aghoris. They worship shiv and try to emulate him in life style.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

@DeadlyVenom Those who eat flesh and live in graveyards are called Aghoris. They worship shiv and try to emulate him in life style.

Yeah that's it I couldn't remember the name.